2018-07-11 17:54 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed 11-07-18 16:35:28, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> 2018-07-10 18:50 GMT+09:00 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Tue 10-07-18 16:19:32, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> >> Hello, Marek.
>> >>
>> >> 2018-07-09 21:19 GMT+09:00 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> >> > cma_alloc() function doesn't really support gfp flags other than
>> >> > __GFP_NOWARN, so convert gfp_mask parameter to boolean no_warn parameter.
>> >>
>> >> Although gfp_mask isn't used in cma_alloc() except no_warn, it can be used
>> >> in alloc_contig_range(). For example, if passed gfp mask has no __GFP_FS,
>> >> compaction(isolation) would work differently. Do you have considered
>> >> such a case?
>> >
>> > Does any of cma_alloc users actually care about GFP_NO{FS,IO}?
>>
>> I don't know. My guess is that cma_alloc() is used for DMA allocation so
>> block device would use it, too. If fs/block subsystem initiates the
>> request for the device,
>> it would be possible that cma_alloc() is called with such a flag.
>> Again, I don't know
>> much about those subsystem so I would be wrong.
>
> The patch converts existing users and none of them really tries to use
> anything other than GFP_KERNEL [|__GFP_NOWARN] so this doesn't seem to
> be the case. Should there be a new user requiring more restricted
> gfp_mask we should carefuly re-evaluate and think how to support it.
One of existing user is general DMA layer and it takes gfp flags that is
provided by user. I don't check all the DMA allocation sites but how do
you convince that none of them try to use anything other
than GFP_KERNEL [|__GFP_NOWARN]?
Thanks.
